UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA 

COLLEGE   OF   AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL    EXPERIMENT   STATION 

BERKELEY,    CALIFORNIA 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE 
FRESH  PLUM  INDUSTRY 


EMIL   RAUCHENSTEIN 


BULLETIN  459 

October,  1928 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRINTING  OFFICE 
BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 

1928 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Summary  and  conclusions 3 

Object  of  this  study 4 

The  importance  of  the  plum  industry  in  California 5 

Distribution  of  plum  trees  in  the  United  States 6 

Distribution  and  trend  of  bearing  acreage  in  California 10 

Shipments  of  plums 12 

Trend  in  California  shipments 12 

United  States  shipments  by  regions 13 

United  States  shipments  by  months 14 

Competition  with  other  fruits 15 

Canned  plums 17 

Prices  of  plums 18 

Seasonal  variations 18 

Prices  by  varieties 22 

Prices  and  quantities  sold : 23 

Net  prices  to  growers 26 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  FRESH  PLUM 
INDUSTRY1 

EMTL  RAUCHENSTEIN2 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

Plums  rank  fourteenth  in  value  among  California  fruits  and  thir- 
teenth in  bearing  acreage.  Their  value  is  3  per  cent  of  that  of  the 
orange  crop — the  crop  having  the  highest  value — and  the  bearing 
acreage  occupied  is  10  per  cent  of  the  raisin-grape  acreage — the  crop 
having  the  largest  acreage. 

Plum  trees  are  widely  distributed  throughout  the  United  States, 
but  only  the  three  Pacific  Coast  states  and  Idaho  produce  many  that 
enter  commercial  channels.  More  than  one-half  of  the  plum  shipments 
come  from  California,  and  the  proportion  as  well  as  the  amount  is 
increasing.  One-half  of  the  bearing  plum  acreage  in  California  in 
1927  was  in  the  four  contiguous  counties,  Placer,  Sacramento,  Solano, 
and  San  Joaquin.  Increases  have  been  very  rapid  in  Tulare  and 
Fresno  counties  which,  in  the  same  year,  made  up  approximately 
one-fourth  of  the  acreage  in  the  state.  From  1921  to  1927  the  bearing 
acreage  of  plums  in  California  increased  from  19,715  to  33,827,  an 
increase  of  72  per  cent.  A  bearing  acreage  of  38,800  is  estimated 
for  1930. 

Interstate  shipments  of  plums  from  California  increased  from  465 
carlots  in  1895  to  more  than  5,000  in  1923  and  1926.  On  an  average 
each  year  the  shipments  were  6.624  per  cent  greater  than  the  preced- 
ing year.  Most  of  the  plums  in  the  United  States  shipped  during 
June  and  July  come  from  California.  In  August  and  September  the 
bulk  of  the  plums  come  from  Oregon,  Washington,  and  Idaho.  Carlot 
shipments  of  mixed  deciduous  fruits,  apples,  pears,  cantaloupes,  and 
peaches  in  the  United  States  during  June,  July,  and  August  have 
increased  rapidly  from  1920  to  1927.    Plums  make  up  but  a  small 


1  Economic  aspects  of  the  dried-prune  industry  are  considered  in  a  separate 
study  by  Dr.  S.  W.  Shear  of  the  Division  of  Agricultural  Economics,  to  whom  the 
author  is  particularly  indebted  for  considerable  of  the  data  on  plum  prices  and 
quantities  sold,  used  in  the  present  study.  Assistance  in  statistical  computations 
was  rendered  by  Miss  Gladys  E.  Platts,  statistical  clerk,  and  Mr.  George  L.  Horen- 
stein,  student  assistant. 

2  Associate  Agricultural  Economist  in  Experiment  Station. 


4  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

proportion  of  the  shipments  of  all  of  these  fruits,  averaging  approx- 
imately 7.0  per  cent  of  the  total  in  June,  3.5  per  cent  in  July,  and 
4.0  per  cent  in  August. 

Nearly  all  plums  are  consumed  in  the  fresh  state.  Only  4  to  8 
per  cent  are  canned,  the  bulk  of  which  come  from  California. 

The  early  California  plums  usually  bring  high  prices  in  New  York 
when  they  first  come  on  the  market.  As  the  supplies  increase  prices 
rapidly  decline.  The  later  varieties  bring  some  recovery  in  prices, 
especially  when  the  supplies  become  limited  towards  the  end  of  the 
season.  The  varieties  bringing  the  highest  prices  at  New  York  from 
1925  to  1927  were  Kelsey,  Wickson,  President,  Beauty,  and  Formosa. 
The  Diamond  and  Tragedy  rank  high  among  those  on  which  complete 
records  are  available  since  1917.  In  selecting  varieties  for  planting, 
however,  it  should  be  noted  that  there  are  considerable  variations 
from  year  to  year  in  the  rank  held  by  the  different  varieties,  and 
further,  that  other  factors  such  as  adaptability  of  the  variety  to  the 
region,  cost  of  production  per  crate,  the  problem  of  pollination,  and 
labor  distribution,  must  be  considered  as  well  as  the  price  the  variety 
is  likely  to  bring. 

The  average  annual  price  of  California  plums  on  the  New  York 
market  is  largely  affected  by  the  quantities  sold.  Large  quantities 
generally  bring  low  prices  and  small  quantities  high  prices.  To  a 
considerable  extent  this  also  holds  for  the  individual  varieties.  The 
trend  in  prices  (adjusted  for  changes  in  price  level)  has  been  approx- 
imately on  a  level  since  1920.  The  trend  in  quantities  sold  has  been 
upward.  Since  shipments  of  other  fruits  as  well  as  plums  are  increas- 
ing rapidly,  prices  in  the  future  are  not  likely  to  average  higher  than 
those  obtained  since  1920.  Of  course  the  fact  that  plums  make  up 
but  a  small  part  of  the  total  fruit  supply  available  during  the  summer 
may  lead  some  growers  to  conclude  that  even  a  marked  increase  in 
the  supply  of  plums  would  not  have  a  noticeable  effect  on  price. 
Preliminary  studies,  however,  indicate  that  plum  prices  are  affected 
much  more  by  the  quantities  of  plums  coming  onto  the  market  than 
by  the  quantities  of  other  fruits  available. 


OBJECT  OF  THIS  STUDY 

The  object  of  this  study  is  to  present  and  to  analyze  the  available 
data  on  plum  production,  crop  movement,  relation  to  other  fruits, 
utilization,  and  the  relationship  between  supply  and  price,  in  order 
to  obtain  some  basis  for  judging  the  economic  outlook  for  the  industry. 


BuL.  459]     ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   FRESH   PLUM    INDUSTRY 


THE   IMPORTANCE  OF  THE   PLUM    INDUSTRY   IN   CALIFORNIA 

The  average  farm  value  of  the  plum  crop  in  California  for  the 
years  1926  and  1927  (see  table  1)  was  $2,170,000  or  fourteenth  in 
the  list  of  California  fruits.    The  orange  crop  leads  the  list  with  a 

TABLE  1 

Value  of  Fruit  Crops  in  California* 

(Average  of  1926  and  1927) 


Rank 


Crop 


Value 

(in  thousands  of  dollars) 

(Dec.  1) 


Per  cent 

of  value  of 

oranges 


Oranges 

Wine  grapes 

Lemons 

Raisins  (dried) 

Peaches 

Nuts  (almonds  and  walnuts) 

Prunes 

Apricots 

Table  grapes 

Pears 

Raisins  (marketed  fresh) 

Apples 

Cherries 

Plums 

Olives 

Figs 


77,047 
19,958 
19,636 
19,495 
15,887 
15,480 
14,150 
10,788 
9,312 
8,375 
5,775 
5,426 
2,880 
2,170 
1,080 
734 


100 

26 

25 

25 

21 

20 

18 

14 

12 

11 

7 

7 

4 

3 

1 

1 


*  Data  from  California  cooperative  crop  reporting  service.    California  Annual  Crop  Report 
1927,  p.  3    (mimeograph),  January  4,   1928. 


TABLE  2 

Estimated  Bearing  Acreages  of  Fruit  Crops  in  California,  1927 


Rank 

Crop 

Acreage 

Per  cent 

of  raisin 

grape 

acreage 

1 

349,660 
185,543 
166,864 
165,199 
161,797 
150,822 
145,580 
80,724 
58,138 
55,325 
45,132 
43,179 
33,827 
2*4,670 
12,593 

100 

2 

53 

3 

48 

4 

Prunes 

47 

5 

Nuts 

46 

6 

43 

7 

42 

8 

Apricots 

23 

9 

17 

10 

16 

11 

Figs 

13 

12 

Lemons 

12 

13 

10 

14 

7 

15 

4 

Data  from  Kaufman,  E.  E.,  California  crop  report  for  1926.     California  Dept. 
Agr.  Spec.  Pub.  74:26.    1927. 


b  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

a  value  of  $77,047,000  and  wine  grapes  are  second  with  a  value  of 
$19,958,000.  Hence  the  plum  crop  was  3  per  cent  as  valuable  as  the 
orange  crop,  and  11  per  cent  as  valuable  as  wine  grapes. 

Comparisons  on  the  basis  of  bearing  acreage  for  1927  are  shown 
in  table  2.  Here  plums  rank  thirteenth  in  the  list  of  California  fruits. 
Raisin  grapes  lead  the  list  with  349,660  acres,  while  oranges  are 
second  with  185,543  acres.  Plums  comprise  33,827  acres,  or  10  per 
cent  of  the  raisin-grape  acreage. 

DISTRIBUTION   OF   PLUM  TREES   IN  THE   UNITED   STATES 

Plums  are  probably  the  most  widely  distributed  tree  fruit  in  the 
United  States.  Some  of  the  native  varieties  are  exceedingly  resistant 
to  cold  and  drought.  These  hardy  native  varieties,  however,  do  not 
enter  into  commercial  channels  to  any  great  extent,  but  are  of  con- 
siderable importance  in  home  consumption.  Those  varieties  which 
attain  larger  size  and  possess  finer  dessert  qualities  enter  into  commer- 
cial channels.  More  than  half  of  these  are  grown  in  California,  where 
the  climate  is  less  severe  than  in  the  north  central  and  north  Atlantic 
states. 

The  distribution  of  plum  trees  in  the  United  States  for  the  years 
1910,  1920,  and  1925  is  shown  by  states  and  sections  in  table  3.  The 
United  States  Census  combines  plums  with  prunes  regardless  of 
whether  the  fruit  is  used  fresh  or  dried.  However,  since  California, 
Oregon,  and  Washington  are  the  only  states  which  dry  any  consider- 
able quantities  of  prunes,  the  data  on  plums  as  given  in  table  3  have 
not  been  changed  from  those  given  in  the  United  States  Census  except 
in  the  case  of  the  three  Pacific  Coast  states.  For  these  states  estimates 
have  been  made  from  the  state  data  on  production  and  acreages  of 
plums  and  prunes  so  as  to  obtain  figures  comparable  with  those  given 
for  the  rest  of  the  United  States.  The  methods  used  in  making  those 
estimates  are  explained  in  the  footnote  to  table  3.  The  estimates  must 
be  considered  only  as  preliminary  for  Oregon  and  Washington,  sub- 
ject to  correction  as  soon  as  a  more  accurate  basis  can  be  obtained 
for  making  these  estimates. 

In  a  general  way  the  distribution  of  plum  trees  in  the  United 
States  outside  of  California  resembles  that  of  apple  trees.3  The 
number  of  plum  trees,  however,  is  approximately  only  one-tenth  as 
great  as  the  number  of  apple  trees  and  the  area  devoted  to  plums  is 
probably  less  than  one-twentieth  of  the  apple  area. 


s  Eauchenstein,  Emil.   Economic  aspects  of  the  apple  industry.    California  Agr. 
Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  445:18,  19.     1927. 


BUL.  459]     ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   FRESH    PLUM    INDUSTRY 


TABLE  3 


Number  of  Plum  Trees,  Bearing  and  Non-Bearing,  in  the  United  States  by 
States  and  Sections,  1910,  1920,  and  1925 

(In  Thousands) 


States  and  sections 

1910 

1920 

1925 

1.   New  England  states: 

66 
36 
49 
65 
7 
43 
266 

1,247 

70 

1,238 

2,555 

1,335 
745 

742 

718 

177 

3,717 

402 

1,400 

1,102 

55 

440 

535 

751 

4,685 

31 

99 

232 
360 
214 
104 
419 
56 
1,515 

484 
608 
264 
340 
1,696 

47 
25 
30 
49 
3 

25 
179 

951 

42 

1,001 

1,994 

589 
267 
353 
520 
180 
1,909 

297 
409 
673 
61 
177 
149 
212 
1,978 

7 
53 

154 
239 
146 

65 
174 

45 
883 

340 
329 
121 
99 
889 

33 

17 

21 

51 

4 

27 

Total 

153 

2.   Middle  Atlantic  states: 

New  York 

975 

41 

895 

Total 

1,911 

3.   East  north  central  states: 

Ohio 

588 

277 

Illinois 

395 

565 

250 

Total 

2,075 

4.   West  north  central  states: 

320 

482 

614 

69 

South  Dakota 

176 

Nebraska 

180 

Kansas 

236 

Total 

2,077 

5.   South  Atlantic  states: 

5 

Maryland 

51 

District  of  Columbia 

Virginia 

174 

West  Virginia 

208 

North  Carolina 

156 

South  Carolina 

51 

Georgia 

220 

Florida 

82 

Total 

947 

6.  East  south  central  states: 
Kentucky 

254 

Tennessee 

268 

Alabama 

99 

Mississippi 

91 

Total 

712 

UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Table  3 — (Continued) 


States  and  sections 


7.  West  south  central  states: 

Arkansas 

Louisiana 

Oklahoma 

Texas 

Total 

8.  Mountain  states: 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming 

Colorado 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Total 

9.  Pacific  states: 

Washington* 

Oregon* 

California! 

Total 

TOTAL  UNITED  STATES 


1910 


1920 


911 

363 

307 

191 

124 

92 

632 

311 

254 

1,349 

724 

630 

3,083 

1,522 

1,283 

36 

29 

19 

401 

633 

719 

12 

16 

12 

212 

108 

73 

94 

62 

56 

20 

23 

38 

159 

74 

64 

10 

7 

7 

944 

952 

988 

627 

357 

404 

1,009 

576 

650 

1,623 

2,583 

4,339 

3,259 

3,516 

5,393 

21,720 

13,822 

15,539 

1925 


*  Data  on  number  of  plum  trees  in  Washington  and  Oregon  were  obtained  by  subtracting  estimates 
of  the  number  of  prune  trees  from  the  totals  of  plum  and  prune  trees  given  by  the  census.  Estimates 
of  the  number  of  prune  trees  were  made  by  taking  the  data  on  prune  production  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr. 
Dept.  Cir.  416:36,  1927.  Critchfield,  Burke  H.  Demand,  marketing  and  production  of  Oregon  and 
Washington  prunes,  (with  several  corrections  from  the  California  Fruit  News  annual  statistical  numbers), 
aad  the  data  on  acreage,  calculating  the  normal  trend  of  production  from  1910  to  1926,  and  assuming  the 
acreage  back  in  1925,  1920,  and  1910  to  be  in  the  same  ratio  to  normal  production  as  in  1926.  The  plum 
acreage  thus  calculated  was  divided  between  Washington  and  Oregon  in  proportion  to  the  fresh  plum 
shipments  from  these  states  from  1920  to  1927. 

t  Data  on  number  of  trees  for  1920  and  1925  are  based  on  estimated  acreages  from  Kaufman,  E.  E. 
California  crop  report  for  1926.  California  Dept.  Agr.  Spec.  Pub.  74:25,  26,  1927,  counting  109  trees  to 
the  acre  and  adding  37  per  cent  for  non-bearing  trees.  Estimates  for  1910  are  based  on  shipment  data 
(table  6)  which  showed  a  trend  represented  by  the  equation  log  j/=3. 209733+0. 028092.  Converting  this 
to  acreage  trend  and  using  the  mean  of  bearing  acreages  1914-1926  as  the  starting  point  centered  at  the 
year  1920  gave  log  j/=4.316997+0.02809z.    Conversion  to  number  of  trees  is  then  made  as  for  1920  and  1925. 


Data  for  1925  compiled  from  U.  S.  Census  of  Agr.  1925:48-51. 
Data  for  1910  and  1920  compiled  from  14th  Census  of  U.  S.  5:866. 


1920. 


The  trend  in  the  number  of  plum  trees  from  1910  to  1925  in  most 
of  the  states  is  similar  to  the  trend  in  the  number  of  apple  trees 
during  the  same  period.  In  those  states  where  plums  are  produced 
in  small  farm  orchards  as  a  side-line  to  a  general  farming  business, 
the  number  of  trees  has  decreased  50  per  cent,  in  many  cases,  from 
1910  to  1920.  From  1920  to  1925  there  was  little  change  in  most  of 
these  states.  California  and  Idaho  are  the  only  important  plum 
producing  states  which  showed  consistent  increases  in  the  number  of 
trees  from  1910  to  1925.  California  had  1,623,000  trees  in  1910  and 
increased  them  to  4,339,000  in  1925.  Idaho  had  401,000  trees  in  1910 
and  719,000  in  1925. 


BUL.  459]     ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF    THE   FRESH    PLUM    INDUSTRY 


TABLE  4 
Bearing  Acres  of  Plums  in  California,  by  Counties,  1921-1927 


1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927 

District  No.  1  : 

Del  Norte 

Humboldt 

100 

10 

150 
10 

7 

37 
20 

100 
10 

150 
10 

7 

37 

27 

110 

10 

150 
10 

7 

37 
27 

120 

10 

150 
10 

7 

37 
27 

130 

12 

150 
10 

7 

40 
32 

135 
17 

150 
10 

7 

10 
13 

135 

Mendocino 

17 

District  No.  2: 

Shasta 

75 

Siskiyou 

10 

Trinity 

7 

District  No.  3: 

Lassen 

2 

Modoc 

13 

Plumas 

District  No.  4: 

Alameda 

200 
25 

200 
25 

200 
25 

200 
25 

205 
25 

200 
25 

200 

Contra  Costa 

40 

Lake 

Marin 

9 

9 
37 
75 
10 
32 
22 
400 

9 
38 
75 
10 
42 
22 
900 

9 
40 
75 
10 
53 
22 
1,400 

9 
40 
100 
15 
78 
22 
1,400 

9 
45 
100 
20 
105 
22 
1,400 

20 

Monterey 

45 

Napa 

75 
10 
60 
22 
400 

50 

San  Benito 

20 

147 

San  Mateo 

76 

Santa  Clara 

1,450 

Santa  Cruz 

Sonoma 

200 

117 

23 

8 

2,394 

2,700 

164 

10 

689 

50 

820 
78 
50 
108 
70 
1,212 
35 
1,209 

250 

117 

23 

10 

2,528 

3,810 

170 

10 

900 

50 

1,200 

78 

50 

108 

70 

1,364 

104 

1,644 

300 

117 

23 

13 

2,564 

3,810 

176 

10 

900 

50 

1,309 

114 

75 

109 

92 

1,414 

114 

2,037 

350 

117 

23 

15 

2,600 

3,810 

183 

10 

896 

50 

1,700 
150 
100 
110 
114 

1,464 
124 

2,429 

550 

121 

23 

15 

2,798 

3,865 

228 

25 

1,100 

50 

2,500 
553 
100 
111 
142 

1,546 
135 

3,387 

550 

289 

23 

15 

2,800 

4,270 

246 

26 

1,175 

50 

3,000 
203 
110 
171 
203 

1,601 
133 

3,387 

550 

District  No.  5: 
Butte 

280 

Colusa 

23 

Glenn 

18 

Sacramento 

3,050 

Solano 

4,420 

Sutter 

307 

Tehama 

30 

Yolo 

1,225 

Yuba 

50 

District  No.  5a: 

Fresno 

Kern 

1,060 

Kings 

100 

Madera 

315 

Merced 

285 

San  Joaquin 

1,752 

Stanislaus 

174 

Tulare 

5,129 

District  No.  6: 

Alpine 

200 

78 

400 

10 

25 

210 
82 

400 
12 
27 

210 
82 

425 
12 

27 

210 
15 

450 
12 

27 

220 
15 

475 
16 
27 

225 
17 

500 
16 
27 

225 

Calaveras 

17 

Eldorado 

450 

Inyo 

16 

27 

Mono 

197 
6,769 

200 

6,809 

212 
6,841 

225 
6,873 

255 
7,352 

265 
7,465 

268 

7,512 

0 

6 

6 

5 

5 

6 

10 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Table  4 — (Continued) 


1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927 

District  No.  8: 

462 

663 

663 

663 

676 

611 

604 

10 

294 
186 

15 
131 

229 

20 
135 
255 

23 

140 

278 

23 

13 

23 

161 

273 

20 

13 

23 

186 

275 

20 

16 

35 

161 

295 

20 

12 

13 

13 

16 

State 

19,715 

22,432 

23,800 

25,398 

29,055 

30,171 

33,827 

Data  from:  California  Crop  Reporting  Service.  Estimated  bearing  acres  of 
plums  in  California.    1  p.  (mimeo.).    1927. 

The  total  number  of  trees  in  the  United  States  in  1925  was 
15,539,000.  Of  these  California  had  4,339,000,  or  approximately  28 
per  cent.  The  middle  Atlantic,  east  north  central,  and  west  north 
central  states  had  approximately  2,000,000  plum  trees  in  each  group 
in  1925.  In  the  west  south  central  states  1,283,000  trees  were  reported 
in  the  1925  Census.  The  south  Atlantic  and  mountain  states  had 
nearly  1,000,000  trees  in  each  group,  and  the  east  south  central  group 
had  slightly  over  700,000. 


DISTRIBUTION    AND   TREND    OF    BEARING    ACREAGE    IN 
CALIFORNIA 

During  the  seven-year  period  from  1921  to  1927  the  bearing 
acreage  of  plums  in  California  increased  rapidly,  as  shown  in  table  4. 
Beginning  with  19,715  acres  in  1921  plums  increased  to  33.827  in 
1927,  or  72  per  cent.  The  increase  was  most  rapid  in  Tulare  County 
which  increased  from  1,209  to  5,129  acres  during  this  period,  while 
Fresno  County  was  next  with  an  increase  from  820  to  3,100.  Santa 
Clara  County  shows  a  rapid  rate  of  expansion  beginning  with  400 
acres  and  increasing  to  1,450.  Placer  County  had  the  largest  acreage 
during  the  whole  period  ending  with  7,512  acres  in  1927,  an  increase 
of  approximately  800  acres  in  seven  years.  The  four  counties,  Placer, 
Sacramento,  Solano,  and  San  Joaquin,  east  and  north  of  Suisun  Bay 
(see  figure  1)  included  approximately  50  per  cent  of  the  bearing 
acreage  in  California.  If  we  include  Tulare  and  Fresno  counties  in 
addition  to  the  previous  four  counties  we  have  74  per  cent  of  the  total 


BUL.  459]     ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF    THE   FRESH   PLUM    INDUSTRY 


11 


acreage  in  the  state.  Three  additional  counties,  viz.,  Santa  Clara, 
Yolo,  and  Kern,  have  more  than  1,000  acres  each.  The  total  acreage 
in  these  nine  counties  was  28,698  acres,  or  85  per  cent  of  the  total. 


Plum  Bearing  Acreage  in  California,  1927 


u 

LWIIII 

\     v fi      *y 

^T  \><^ 

\       K»K>i     \\\ 

j^^m*'L" 

\        V. 

L  \  * 


/Dot  --200 Acres 


Fig.  1. — One-half  of  the  bearing  plum  acreage  in  California  is  in  the  four  con- 
tiguous counties  of  Placer,  Sacramento,  Solano,  and  San  Joaquin  and  one-fourth 
is  in  Tulare  and  Fresno  counties.     (Data  from  table  4.) 


According  to  E.  E.  Kaufman4  there  will  be  further  increases  in 
acreage  for  the  state  as  a  whole,  reaching  38,800  acres  in  1930,  an 
increase  of  15  per  cent  above  the  1927  acreage. 


*  From  a  letter  to  the  writer,  dated  July  18,  1028. 


12 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


SHIPMENTS    OF    PLUMS 

Trend  in  California  Shipments. — The  growth  of  the  plum  indus- 
try in  California  is  well  shown  by  the  record  of  interstate  carlot  ship- 
ments from  1895-1926  (see  table  5  and  figure  2).  In  1895  shipments 
amounted  to  465  carlots  and  in  1926  they  amounted  to  5,221  carlots. 

TABLE  5 

Interstate  Shipments  of  California  Plums,  1895-1927 


Year 

Shipments* 

Shipments* 

Shipments* 

in  carlots 

in  carlots 

in  carlots 

1895 

465 

1906 

1,220 

1917 

2,651 

1896 

407 

1907 

1,039 

1918 

2,483 

1897 

742 

1908 

1,763 

1919 

2,918 

1898 

542 

1909 

1,527 

1920 

2,564 

1899 

885 

1910 

1,552 

1921 

3,113 

1900 

1,158 

1911 

1,366 

1922 

3,498 

1901 

936 

1912 

1,775 

1923 

5,247 

1902 

1,473 

1913 

1,668 

1924 

2,882 

1903 

1,145 

1914 

1,907 

1925 

3,709 

1904 

1,053 

1915 

2,225 

1926 

5,221 

1905 

1,391 

1916 

1,999 

1927 

4,085 

*  Shipments  from  1895  to  1920,  inclusive,  are  from  north  of  the  Tehachapi  only. 

Data  for  1895  to  1926  from  Kaufman,  E.  E.  California  crop  report  for  1926. 
California  Dept  Agr.  Spec.  Pub.  74:21.  1927.  For  1927  from  preliminary  esti- 
mates by  N.  I.  Nielsen  of  the  California  Cooperative  Crop  Keporting  Service. 

Interstate  Shipments  of  California  Plums  in  Carlots,  1895-1927 


Carlots 

4000 

2000 

JO 

|  I00O 

— <       , 

-Trend 

^   600 

^T-Shipme, 

?As 

400 

zoo 

1695 


1900 


1905 


1910 


1915 


1920 


1925 


1950 


Yean 


Fig.  2. — In  1900  California  shipments  first  exceeded  1000  carlots  while  in 
1923  they  exceeded  5000  carlots.  On  an  average  each  year  increased  6.624  per 
cent  over  the  preceding  year.  The  equation  for  the  trend  line  is  log  y  =  3.209733 
-f  0.014045x.     (Data  from  table  5.) 


BUL.  459]     ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   FRESH   PLUM    INDUSTRY 


13 


In  1900  shipments  exceeded  1,000  carlots  for  the  first  time,  and  in 
1915  they  passed  the  2,000  mark.  More  than  3,000  carlots  were 
shipped  in  1921  and  more  than  5,000  in  1923  and  1926. 

Neglecting  the  irregular  fluctuations  from  year  to  year  a  steady 
growth  in  shipments  can  be  noted.  This  is  shown  by  the  straight  line 
in  figure  2,  which  shows  the  long-time  trend.  This  indicates  an 
average  annual  increase  for  the  whole  period  of  6.624  per  cent,  i.e., 
each  year  the  normal  shipments  were  6.624  per  cent  greater  than  the 
preceding  year.  Judging  by  the  estimated  increases  in  acreage  up  to 
1930,  the  trend  of  shipments  will  probably  continue  upward  at  the 
same  rate  for  several  years  more. 

TABLE  6 
Caklot  Shipments  of  Plums  in  the  United  States  by  Eegions,  1920-1927 


Oregon,  Washington, 

Rest  of 

California 

and  Idaho 

United  States 

Total 

1920 

2,564 

1,812 

1,076 

5,452 

1921 

3,113 

3,216 

159 

6,488 

1922 

3,498 

1,991 

1,086 

6,575 

1923 

5,247 

4,101 

446 

9,794 

1924 

2,882 

1,730 

674 

5,286 

1925 

3,709 

2,113 

424 

6,246 

1926 

5,221 

3,136 

540 

8,897 

1927 

4,085 

3,068 

102 

7,255 

Data  for  California  are  interstate  only  from  Kaufman,  E.  E.  California  crop 
report  for  1926.  California  Dept.  Agr.  Spec.  Pub.  74:21;  for  1927  preliminary 
estimates  from  N.  I.  Nielsen  of  the  California  Cooperative  Crop  Eeporting  Service. 
Other  states  from  1920-1926  mimeo.  sheets  (unpublished)  of  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr. 
Econ.;  for  1927  from  current  issues  of  Crops  and  Markets. 


United  States  Shipments  by  Regions. — The  total  plum  shipments 
in  the  United  States  from  1920  to  1927  fluctuated  considerably  from 
year  to  year.  In  1920  only  5,452  carlots  were  shipped  compared  with 
9,794  in  1923  (see  table  6).  There  is  no  marked  trend  up  or  down. 
California  shipments  amounted  to  48  per  cent  of  the  total  in  1920 
and  1921.  The  proportion  supplied  by  California  increased  to  59  per 
cent  in  1925  and  1926.  In  1927  California  supplied  56  per  cent  of 
the  total  shipments. 

Shipments  from  Oregon,  Washington,  and  Idaho  amounted  on  an 
average  to  slightly  more  than  one-third  of  the  United  States  total 
shipments.   The  trend  in  these  states  is  about  on  a  level. 

Shipments  from  the  rest  of  the  United  States  originate  mainly  in 
New  York  and  Michigan.  The  shipments  of  plums  from  these  states 
is  declining.    In  1920  they  supplied  nearly  20  per  cent  of  the  total 


14 


UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


shipments,  but  in  1926  only  6.1  per  cent.  Truck  shipments  have 
undoubtedly  increased  during  this  time  but  no  accurate  records  of 
them  are  available. 

United  States  Shipments  by  Months. — During  the  eight-year 
period  from  1920  to  1927  the  peak  of  California  plum  shipments 
came  in  June  each  year  with  the  exception  of  1922  and  1927,  when 


TABLE  7 
Caelot  Shipments  of  Plums  in  the  United  States,  by  Months,  1926-1927 


Months 

California* 

Oregon, 

Washington, 

and  Idaho 

Rest  of 
United 

States 

Total 

1926 

373 
2,649 
1,857 

333 

9 

6 

9 

3 

12 

337 

173t 

379 

2,658 

July 

155 
1,694 

1,279 
8 

2,015 

2,039 

1,625 

181 

Total 

5,221 

3,136 

540 

8,897 

1927 

1,314 
1,840 

926 
5 

20 

4 

6 

55 

17 

1,334 

July 

1,844 

969 
1,940 

159 

1,901 

2,000 

176 

Total 

4,085 

3,068 

102 

7,255 

*  Data  for  California  compiled  from  California  Fruit  News,  current  issues  1926,  1927.    Slight  adjust- 
ments in  monthly  shipments  were  made  to  make  totals  check  with  California  Crop  Report  totals, 
t  This  figure  contains  5  carlots  shipped  in  November. 
Data,  except  for  California,  compiled  from  Crops  and  Markets,  current  issues. 

it  came  in  July.  In  table  7  and  in  figure  3  data  for  1926  are  some- 
what more  typical  of  the  distribution  of  shipments  by  months  than 
those  for  1927.  In  1926,  2,649  carlots  or  approximately  one-half  of 
California  plum  shipments  for  the  year  came  in  June,  slightly  over 
one-third  in  July.  August  and  May  shipments  were  333  and  373 
carlots,  respectively. 

Nearly  all  of  the  plums  shipped  in  the  United  States  in  May,  June, 
and  July  came  from  California.  In  August  and  September  the  ship- 
ments from  Oregon,  Washington,  and  Idaho  comprised  more  than  80 
per  cent  of  the  total  United  States  shipments  in  1926  and  slightly 
more  than  one-half  in  1927,  in  spite  of  the  late  season  in  California. 


BUL.  459]     ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   FRESH    PLUM    INDUSTRY 


15 


Shipments  from  the  rest  of  the  United  States  reached  their  peak  in 
September  in  both  years,  but  made  up  only  a  small  part  of  the  total 
for  any  month. 

Monthly  Carlot  Shipments  of  Plums  in  the  United  States,  1926-1927 


May  June  July  Aug    Sept  Oct   flay  June  July  Aug  5ept  Oct 

Fig.  3. — Nearly  all  of  the  plums  shipped  in  the  United  States  during  May, 
June,  and  July  come  from  California.  In  August  more  than  one-half  of  the  total 
come  from  Oregon,  Idaho,  and  Washington.  The  September  shipments  largely 
come  from  these  three  states.     (Data  from  table  7.) 


COMPETITION  WITH   OTHER   FRUITS 

Large  quantities  of  a  variety  of  fruits  are  shipped  during  the 
months  of  June,  July,  and  August  when  plum  shipments  from  Cali- 
fornia are  important.  Those  which  are  of  considerable  importance  in 
competing  with  plums  and  are  seasonal  in  their  movements  are  shown 
in  table  8  and  figure  4.  The  general  trend  of  shipments  of  all  fruits 
is  upward.  No  data  are  given  for  mixed  deciduous  fruits  during 
1920  and  1921.  Some  plums  are  included  in  this  class  of  fruits,  ship- 
ments of  mixed  deciduous  fruits  from  California  being  estimated  as 
consisting  of  40  per  cent  plums.5 


s  Estimate  of  O.  W.  Holmes,  State  Department  of  Agriculture. 


16 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


During  the  month  of  June  plum  shipments  averaged  1,099  carlots, 
slightly  less  than  7  per  cent  of  the  16,213  carlots — the  average  June 
Shipments  of  all  of  the  fruits  shown  in  table  8.  In  July  the  carlot 
shipments  of  plums  averaged  3.5  per  cent  of  all  the  fruits,  and  in 
August  slightly  over  4  per  cent. 

TABLE  8 

Carlot  Shipments  of  Specified  Fresh  Fruits  in  the  United  States,  for 
June,  July,  and  August,  1920-1927 


Year 


Plums 

Mixed 
deciduous 

Apples 

Pears 

Canta- 
loupes 

Peaches 

Total 


JUNE 


1920 

778 
1,126 

486 
1,114 

829 
1,332 
2,141 

982 

262 

436 

1,117 

509 

912 

942 

1,205 

1,202 

6,700 
7,900 
10,371 
10,193 
11,862 
10,078 
6,239 
11,512 

1,550 
4,000 
3,184 
2,384 
1,873 
4,951 
2,209 
5,409 

9,290 

1921 

13,462 

1922 

821 
2,213 
1,134 
1,040 

895 
722 

460 
1,114 

228 

16,439 

1923 

17,527 

1924 

16,838 

1925 

18,343 

1926 

12,689 

1927 

19,827 

JULY 


1,055 
943 

1,291 
938 
605 
882 

1,330 

1,256 


1,862 
2,543 
1,598 
1,776 
1,888 
938 


1,855 
1,207 
2,592 
3,360 
2,362 
2,895 
3,840 
1,731 


2,677 
1,694 
1,659 
3,973 

2,887 
3,929 
6,237 
2,296 


5,451 

8,669 
10,173 
6,043 
8,311 
9,737 
6,949 
9,656 


6,900 

17,938 

9,300 

21,813 

7,541 

25,118 

10,963 

27,820 

14,603 

30,366 

17,932 

37,151 

21,709 

41,953 

12,938 

28,815 

1920 
1921 
1922 
1923 
1924 
1925 
1926 
1927 

1920 
1921 
1922 
1923 
1924 
1925 
1926 
1927 


Data  from   Crops  and   Markets,  Monthly   Supplements,   current  issues,   1924- 
1927.    No  data  on  mixed  deciduous  fruit  until  1922. 


AUGUST 


Peach  shipments  in  July  and  August  showed  the  most  rapid 
increase  of  all  of  the  fruits  during  the  period  1920  to  1927.  The  last 
four  years  showed  almost  a  100  per  cent  increase  over  the  first  four 
years. 


BUL.  459]     ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   FRESH   PLUM    INDUSTRY  17 

Carlot  Shipments  of  Specified  Fresh  Fruits  in  the  United  States 


1920    21    22    23   24    23   26    27  28    29     1920    21    21    25    24  25  26  27  28   29        1920    21    22   25   24  25   26  27  28  29 

June  July  /lugust 

Fig.  4. — Large  quantities  of  other  fruits  are  shipped  during  the  three  months 
when  most  of  the  California  plums  are  marketed  and  the  trend  of  these  is  upward. 
(Data  from  table  8.) 


CANNED   PLUMS  6 

Most  of  the  canned  plums  in  the  United  States  come  from 
California.  Michigan,  New  York,  Oregon,  and  Washington  can  com- 
paratively small  quantities  of  them.  The  quantities  canned  in 
California  from  1906  to  1926  and  the  proportion  which  they  make 
up  of  the  total  crop  in  the  state  are  shown  in  table  9.  The  quantities 
canned  vary  widely  from  year  to  year.  Thus  in  1908  270,000  cases 
were  canned  while  in  1909  the  number  dropped  to  103,000.  The  trend 
of  total  quantities  canned  from  1906  to  1926  is  slightly  upward.  For 
the  first  ten  years,  1906  to  1915,  the  average  annual  pack  was  155,883 
cases,  and  for  the  last  ten  years,  1917  to  1926,  it  was  184,999.  The 
increase  in  canned  plums  has  not  been  as  rapid  as  the  shipments  (see 
table  5)  and  hence  the  proportion  of  the  total  crop  that  is  canned 
seems  to  be  declining  as  shown  by  the  last  column  of  table  9.  With 
the  exception  of  the  first  year  in  which  this  proportion  is  shown,  1919, 
the  canned  plums  comprised  from  4  to  8  per  cent  of  the  total  crop. 


6  For  a  discussion  of  the  varieties  canned,  and  the  possibilities  of  using  plums 
in  other  ways  see  Cruess,  W.  V.  The  utilization  of  surplus  plums.  California 
Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  400:1-21.    1926. 


18 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  9 
Quantity  and  Proportion  of  California  Plum  Crop  Canned,  1906-1927 


1906-1916 

1917-1927 

Canned  plums 

Year 

Canned  plums 

Total 
production 
fresh  (tons) 

Proportion  f 

Year 

Thousands 
of  cases 

Thousands 
of  cases 

Equivalent 
fresh*  (tons) 

total 

production 

per  cent 

1906 

224 
170 

270 

1917 
1918 
1919 

270 
149 
280 

1907 

1908 

4,667 

42,000 

11  1 

1909 

103 

1920 

165 

2,750 

35,000 

7.9 

1910 

95 

1921 

141 

2,350 

42,000 

5.6 

1911 

188 

1922 

182 

3,033 

48,000 

6  3 

1912 

202 

1923 

164 

2,733 

69.000 

4  0 

1913 

79 

1924 

91 

1,517 

39,000 

3.9 

1914 

131 

1925 

179 

2,983 

51,000 

5.8 

1915 

95 

1926 

229 

3,817 

71,000 

5  4 

1916 

85 

1927 

137 

2,287 

57,000 

4  0 

*  60  cases  canned  plums  equal  one  ton  fresh. 

f  Proportion  of  canned  to  total  production  obtained  by  dividing  the  fresh  equivalent  of  canned 
plums,  by  the  total  production. 

Data  compiled  from  Kaufman,  E.   E.    California  crop  reports  for   1925  and 
1926.    California  Dept/Agr.  Spec.  Pub.  63:26.    1926;  and  74:23.    1927. 


PRICES  OF  PLUMS 

Seasonal  Variations. — California  plums  are  sold  on  the  New  York 
market  for  a  period  of  from  twelve  to  fifteen  weeks.  As  a  rule  prices 
start  at  a  high  point  at  the  beginning  of  the  season  as  limited  quan- 
tities of  the  early  varieties  come  on  the  market.  As  the  quantities 
increase,  prices  of  the  early  varieties  decline  rapidly  and  continue  to 
go  down  after  the  quantities  of  these  varieties  decline  (see  table  10). 
The  later  varieties  coming  on  the  market  are  usually  of  better  quality 
and  bring  higher  prices. 

The  Beauty  plum  was  first  on  the  market  in  1926,  and  brought 
an  average  of  $2.23  a  crate  the  first  week  ending  June  4.  The  follow- 
ing week,  with  increased  receipts,  the  price  dropped  to  $1.39.  During 
the  next  two  weeks  receipts  fell  off,  but  prices  continued  to  decline. 
The  Formosa  plums  experienced  one  exception  to  this  trend  in  the 
third  week,  when  prices  recovered  temporarily  with  a  decline  in 
receipts.  The  Tragedy  plum  came  on  in  large  quantities  the  fourth 
week  of  the  season  and  brought  better  prices  than  the  early  varieties 
which  were  brought  into  competition  with  it.  Still  later  varieties  like 
the  Kelsey  and  President  generally  brought  good  prices  late  in  the 
season.   The  total  volume  of  sales  at  New  York  of  the  eleven  varieties 


BUL.  459]     ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF    THE    FRESH    PLUM    INDUSTRY 


19 


8? 

(** 

5-1 

a 

5-( 

a 

s 

H 

o 

fi 

3? 

^                     re 

s 

P     ow 

to 

to 

»->            CO    to    1— ' 

to 

to   >->               to  ►-   *- 

re 

~J 

2 

CO     C33     O     CO     03     CO 

to    Ol 

Q.0V 

COC73COtOOlOOH-4>. 

re 

S'^1 

g* 

H 

?r 

o 

re 

p_ 

3 

B: 

. 

5' 

TO 

00 

_ 

re        3 

Ol 

"to 

©    -J 

oo  -a  "oi   to 

30     tO 

03     CO 

S  2,3 

~ 

CO    »4    »1    M 

©  o 

re      cr 

en 

O    Ol    O    Oi 

Oi    o 

»       re 

W 

c 

cT 

^i 

^   to  to 

2,^ 

03 

s 

oo 

oo  oo   to 

OO    Ol    S    m 

II 

re  re 

V 

Oi 

Ol    Oi    to    to 

2.^ 

cs 

in 

O    O    Oi    o 

M 

«* 

K 

CO    i-l 

M 

to  i  re 

re 

o; 

to    !->    to    4*. 

OO    OO    CO    Oi 

CO    h- 

--j   co 

SfsS 

re  ^TO 
p.      re 

P 
C 

*• 

?^ 

Cr  re 
re  >cj 

9      ? 

~ 

M     M     W     Id 

a 

,_.    h-    co   i-> 

5 

O    OO    CO    CO 

x 

O    h-    h-    CO 

►i      e 

S2.3 

°-3 

00 

Oi    03    Ol    to 

^1 

re 

-. 

C3     CO     00     43. 

JO 

re      cr 

o 

Oi    O    Oi    © 

3 

«>       re 

g     " 

-1 

re 

a      " 

<i 

to    CO    h- 

2,3 

M 
43. 

43>      !*>•      tO      03      © 

to  ^  re 
re  reTO 

oi 

o! 

CO     CO    it,     H 

O    O    CO    1— 
O    03    CO    oo 
O    O    Oi    o 

^3 
Set 

•sj 

to 

to    4*-    -~I    03 

GO    ■-) 

o 

Q,      re 

to 

1 

3 

i 

**■'' 

oo 

to    -J    CO    ^1 

«  f 

/. 

«• 

si  re 

2.3 

TOTO 

cr  re 
re  iQ 
'^'re' 

$ 

"© 

Oi 

"co  Vl    4»-    Ol 

O    CO    CO    CO 

S-2,3 

re       cr 
co       re 

-o 

H    Ol    M    1^ 
|_>     03     CO     CO 

Cn 

O    Ol    Ol    Ol 

0 

00 

3 
o 

re 

^ 

■  V, 

Oi    tO    Ol    43- 

t  > 

2.-C  < 
re  co  to 

a 
» 

Xj 

►—    43.    ►- 

oo   to   oo  to 

2,3 

SS- 

re  re 

CO    1 

uc 

il>.    Cn    to    Cn 

<i 

CO    CO    l-i  "co 

~ 

H     O0     Ol     H 

p.      re 

3 

o  o  o  o 

o 

00 

-1 

•O    CO    h- 

»      c? 

CO 

~~ > 

3 

0O                ►- 

c 

-« 

»OH 

i       c 

re  >o 

CO   ~j  "co 

o 

MOdif     -J 

S  2,3 

ft 

€« 

X 

O    m    M 
O    C»    Oi 

- 

g 

t^    H    OO    CO 
Z>    ©    O    Oi 

re  ""cr 

t»           (X, 

o  ; 

M    tJ    CO    oo 

CO 

3     c 

3 

K 

Oi    S    Cn    S 

w 

«• 

2.W  < 

0 

'"'re' 
re 

e 

to  3.  re 

CO    to    K- 

—     Ol    ^J    Ol 

re  ^to 

sr 

^1   4,   4* 

3 

fc 

o    to    H-    Ol 

re 

CO    l-i 

2,3 

CL       ffi 

Cn    s    OO    00 

-i   3 

SS- 

re  re 

CO     O    C73    CO    CO     03    ■ 

i 

3 

Oi    to    OO    o    o    to 

O    O    O    Ol    Ol    O 

CO 

03 

_  _ 

o      ? 

CO    <-t 

p 

3 

Ol     H-     4».     < 

J. 

1 

Ji    Ol    *. 

-i        c 

►-  ^1  43.  "c 

o 

J> 

>i   s   oo 

S2.3 

43. 

P 

M      Ol      t»      ( 

n 

B 

f.     OO     CO 

re       c" 
«       re 

SJ 

O    Ol    o 

Jl 

3 

Ji    ©    Oi 

1 

p 

M     ! 

2-     c 

A 

«»    : 

re  2 

re  tJ 
&3. 

o 

_ 

o 

M     Cn    M    CO    o    Oi    : 

3.1 

2.2 

$15 

vl 

§ 

.O     Ol     "<l 

a   > 

2.-C  -i 

TO  n  2 

3"  re  2 
re^TO 

CO           < 

re 

3 

O    to    i—    ^1    43.    k-    : 

to     H-     tO 

35 

O    CO    CO 

re 

Q.        « 

~ 

O 

CO    tO    4*    ■-» 

a3 

i 

i 

o 

M    ilk    M    Cn    Ol 

23 
S9- 
S2 

to 

o       ? 

' 

3 

Ol    m    v]    O    S    Ol 

oo   to   to 

53 

X 

33     ►— 

►i      e 

t 

o 

tO     03     ^J     CO     ^J     ^- 

Ol    Ol    oo 

e 

a 

P-  "to 

S2.3 

c 

3 

o  o  o  o  o  o 

H 

OJ     CO     ^ 

-1 

o 

&.   oo 

re      o* 

to   o  o 

«3. 

o 

Ji    o 

p 

•"d 

Cn 

12 
g!i 

Zr  re 

re  t: 

TO 

re 

re 

Q. 

to 

<< 

M 

•• 

'■* 

2.-0  5 

re"      ' 

2.     « 

_.    ^    ►-    —    ►-    to 

H-      tO      H- 

—   to 

Ji 

to    Oi    4>.    CO    O0    CO 

-J     w     CO 

CO    CO    O 

33 

- 1 

33 

»   to 

O     CO 

STs'S 

»     95 

**       c 

3 

-J   oo   CO    to    to   to 

n,     re 

"""re' 
re 

20 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


shown  in  table  10  equals  approximately  13  per  cent  of  the  total  plum 
shipments  from  California  in  1926,  and  hence  constitute  a  fair  sample 
of  the  crop. 

A  fairly  representative  picture  of  the  seasonal  movement  at  New 
York  can  be  obtained  by  averaging  for  all  of  the  first  weeks,  second 
weeks,  etc.,  during  the  period  1921  to  1927,  the  sales  and  prices  of  the 
five  important  varieties,  viz.,  the  Burbank,  Climax,  Diamond,  Grand 
Duke,  and  Tragedy.    These  are  shown  in  table  11  and  figure  5.    The 

TABLE  11 

Average  Quantities  of  Five  Varieties  of  Plums*  Sold  at  New  York  by 
Weeks  [of  the  Season]  and  Prices  Obtained,  1921-1927 


Sales 

Price 

Week  of  the  season 

Number 
of  crates 

Per  cent 
of  average 

Dollars 

Per  cent 
of  average 

j 

2,870 

20,458 

49,618 

58,003 

42,080 

34,269 

26,938 

18,179 

21,481 

17,397 

7,903 

2,817 

724 

12.3 

87.9 

213.1 

249.1 

180.7 

147.2 

115.7 

78.1 

92.2 

74.7 

33.9 

12.1 

3.1 

2.13 
1.72 
1.73 
1.51 
1.66 
1.69 
1.64 
1.76 
1.66 
1.46 
1.45 
1.54 
1.64 

128.3 

2 

103.6 

3 

104.2 

4 

91.0 

5 

100.0 

6 

101.8 

7 

98.8 

8 

106.0 

9 

100.0 

10 

88.0 

11 

87.3 

12 

92.8 

13 

98.8 

23,287 

100.0 

1.66f 

100.0 

*  Includes  Burbank,  Climax,  Diamond,  Grand  Duke,  and  Tragedy  plums, 
t  Unweighted  average.  The  weighted  average  is  $1.64. 

Data  for  1921-1924  compiled  from  summaries  of  the  Stewart  Fruit  Co.  taken 
from  New  York  Daily  Fruit  Beporter,  current  issues;  for  1925-1927  from  Hansen, 
Carl  J.  Market  News  Service  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  and  California  Dept.  Agr.  Mimeo. 
reports  from  San  Francisco,  current  issues. 

latter  also  shows  total  weekly  shipments  of  plums  from  California 
for  the  same  period. 

The  quantities  sold  increased  during  the  first  four  weeks  while 
the  price  declined.  For  the  rest  of  the  season  the  volume  of  sales 
declined  somewhat  irregularly.  The  marked  decline  in  sales  in  the 
eighth  week  was  accompanied  by  a  slight  recovery  of  prices  which 
declined  again  as  sales  increased.  Toward  the  end  of  the  season  the 
quantities  sold  fell  off  greatly,  and  the  prices  made  a  moderate 
recovery.  Shipments,  which  included  all  varieties,  increased  up  to 
the  fifth  week,  after  which  there  was  practically  a  steady  decline  to 
the  end  of  the  season. 


BUL.  459]     ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OP   THE   FRESH    PLUM    INDUSTRY 


21 


Comparison  of  Weekly  Shipments  of  Plums  from  California  and  Weekly 
Auction  Sales  of  Five  Varieties  at  New  York,  Average  1921-1927 


600 

500 

400 

300 
200 

100 

70 

60 
50 
<40 

30 


i 


Si  20 


—/- 

r^s* 

vpme 

nte 

N 



» 

\ — 

*A 

K 

t 

1 

\ 

»»_ 

/ 

X 

/ 

s^ 

/ 

NT 

1 

r 

\ 

^ 

V 

1 

\ 

++ 

vx 

1 

i 

1 

\ 

1 

\ 

i+—Aue1ion  5 

ales 

\ 

1 

\ 

1 
/ 

\ 

1 
1 

\ 

I 
1 

V 

f 

\ 

f 

\ 

1 

X 

\ 

y.     . 

^-D^-.V 

\ 

>iLi 

ss 

^" 

_^            \ 

\ 

\ 

V 

Price 

$ 

2.00 


1.50 


LOO 


5        6        7        8        9 

Weeks  of  season 


10 


IZ       15 


Fig.  5.— Volume  of  sales  of  Burbank,  Climax,  Diamond,  Grand  Duke,  and 
Tragedy  plums  at  New  York  are  approximately  proportional  to  shipments  through- 
out the  season.  The  price  trend  is  downward  as  the  season  advances  with  some 
recovery  as  the  later  varieties  arrive,  and  as  supplies  become  very  short  (Data 
from  table  12.) 


22 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Prices  by  Varieties.  —  There  is  considerable  variation  in  the 
average  price  which  the  different  varieties  of  plums  bring  on  the 
New  York  market,  and  the  rank  based  on  price  often  changes  from 
season  to  season.  There  is  no  certainty,  therefore,  that  the  variety 
which  has  brought  the  highest  price  for  one  or  more  years  will 
continue  to  bring  the  highest  price.  It  is  of  some  interest,  however, 
to  compare  the  prices  which  eleven  of  the  important  varieties  of 
California  plums  have  brought,  during  the  last  three  seasons,  1925- 
1927.  Table  12  shows  the  simple  averages  of  the  weighted  annual 
prices  of  these  varieties  arranged  in  order  from  highest  to  lowest, 
with  the  earliest  and  latest  dates  of  sales. 


TABLE  12 

Average  Prices  of  Plums  at  New  York,  1925-1927,  by  Varieties  and 
Earliest  and  Latest  Dates  of  Sale 


Rank 

• 
Variety 

Average 
price 

Earliest 
date 

Latest 
date 

1 

Kelsey 

$2.25 
1.96 
1.87 
1.72 
1.70 
1.67 
1.66 
1.54 
1.50 
1.45 
1.45 

July  17 
June  25 
July  30 
May  27 
June  4 
July  3  | 
June^ll 
June^l6 
June  4j 
July  16 
June  4 

Sept.  4 

2 

Aug.  12 

3 

Sept.  15 

4 

July  8 

5 

July  15 

6 

Aug.  26 

7 

Aug.  12 

g 

Aug.  12 

9 

Aug.  19 

10 

Sept.  10 

11 

Climax 

July  15 

Data  compiled  from  Hansen,  Carl  J.    Market  News  Service.    U.  S.  Dept.  Agr. 
and  California  Dept.  Agr.  Mimeo.  reports  from  San  Francisco,  current  issues. 

The  three  highest  varieties,  Kelsey,  Wickson,  and  President  are 
medium  or  late  varieties.  The  fourth  and  fifth  (Beauty  and  Formosa) 
are  among  the  earliest.  Prices  have  been  compiled  since  1917  on  the 
Diamond,  Tragedy,  Burbank,  Grand  Duke,  and  Climax  and  are  shown 
in  table  13.  The  records  over  the  longer  period,  1917  to  1927,  show 
that  the  Tragedy  has  usually  brought  a  higher  price  than  the 
diamond.  The  Grand  Duke  ranks  higher  and  the  Burbank  lower  for 
the  eleven-year  period  than  for  the  last  three  years. 

In  choosing  a  variety  for  planting,  however,  other  factors  besides 
the  price  of  the  past  three  years  or  the  past  eleven  years  must  be 
considered.    Some  of  these  factors  are: 

1.  The  adaptability  of  the  variety  to  the  region.  There  would  be 
no  advantage  in  trying  to  grow  an  early  variety  in  the  cooler  parts  of 
the  plum-growing  area. 


BUL.  459]     ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF    THE   FRESH    PLUM    INDUSTRY  23 

2.  The  cost  of  production  per  crate  depends  largely  upon  the  yield 
per  acre.  Some  of  the  varieties  yield  more  heavily  than  others  and 
hence  can  be  produced  at  lower  costs  per  crate. 

3.  Some  varieties  are  self-sterile  or  inter-sterile  and  hence  must 
be  planted  with  varieties  which  will  bring  about  proper  fertilization. 
The  work  of  Professor  Hendrickson  of  this  station  gives  detailed 
information  on  this  point.7 

4.  A  combination  of  varieties  which  will  distribute  the  labor 
evenly  over  a  long  period  of  time  is  usually  advantageous  in  an 
orchard. 

Prices  and  Quantities  Sold. — There  is  a  fairly  consistent  relation- 
ship between  the  quantities  of  plums  sold  from  year  to  year  and  the 
average  price  obtained  for  them.  For  the  first  four  years  of  the 
period  1917  to  1927  this  relationship  is  not  so  evident  because  of  the 
fact  that  the  general  price  level  was  changing  considerably  and  was 
unusually  high  during  this  period  compared  with  the  price-level  from 
1921  to  1927.  In  order  to  have  the  prices  of  plums  comparable  from 
year  to  year  they  were  adjusted  for  these  changes  in  the  price  level 
by  dividing  the  annual  prices  by  the  corresponding  July  index  num- 
ber of  all  commodities,  compiled  by  the  United  States  Bureau  of 
Labor  Statistics.  This  index  number  as  given  in  the  source  (see 
footnote  to  table  13)  is  calculated  relative  to  the  1910  to  1914  period 
taken  as  equal  to  100.  The  price  level  in  1927  was  approximately  50 
per  cent  above  the  1910  to  1914  base,  hence  the  prices  after  being 
divided  by  the  corresponding  index  number  were  multiplied  by  1.5 
which  adjusts  them  all  approximately  to  the  1927  price  level.  These 
adjusted  prices  are  shown  beside  the  actuals  in  table  13  and  are 
charted  with  sales  in  figure  6. 

During  seasons  when  large  quantities  were  sold  low  prices  usually 
prevailed,  and,  with  the  exception  of  the  first  three  years,  in  seasons 
during  which  small  quantities  were  sold  high  prices  prevailed.  Thus 
in  1923  and  1926  large  quantities  resulted  in  low  prices  per  crate, 
and  in  1921,  1924,  and  1927  small  quantities  of  all  varieties  resulted 
in  high  prices.  The  coefficient  of  correlation  between  quantities  and 
prices  varies  from  — 0.3  to  — 0.6  for  the  individual  varieties  and 
amounts  to  — 0.8  for  all  five  varieties.  Perfect  inverse  correlation 
would  be  indicated  by  — 1.0. 


*  Hendrickson,    A.    H.     Plum    pollination.     California    Agr.    Exp.    Sta.    Bui. 
310:1-28.    1919. 

Further    experiments    in    plum    pollination.     California    Agr.    Exp.    Sta.    Bui. 
352:247-266.    1922. 


24 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  13 

Auction  Sales  at  New  York,  Actual  and  Adjusted  Price  of  Five  Varieties 

of  Plums,  1917-1927 


Diamond 

Grand  Duke 

Climax 

Year 

Crates 

Actual 
price 

Adjusted* 
price 

Crates 

Actual 
price 

Adjusted* 
price 

Crates 

Actual 
price 

Adjusted* 
price 

1917 

44,891 

$1.37 

$1.08 

56,184 

$1.41 

$1.11 

56,516 

$1.38 

$1.08 

1918 

18,360 

1.94 

1.45 

31,765 

1.96 

1.47 

53,489 

1.60 

1  20 

1919 

25,020 

2.08 

1.45 

37,430 

1.80 

1.25 

65,412 

1.83 

1.27 

1920 

14,985 

2.57 

1.57 

26,732 

2.50 

1  53 

47,245 

2.62 

1.60 

1921 

28,575 

2.38 

2.49 

33,090 

2.06 

2.15 

78,155 

1.37 

1.43 

1922 

34,130 

1.38 

1.31 

60,795 

1.44 

1.37 

80,765 

1.39 

1.32 

1923 

68,650 

1.17 

1.14 

77,620 

1.31 

1.28 

89,280 

1  63 

1.59 

1924 

30,165 

1.68 

1.68 

42,010 

1.85 

1.85 

46,355 

1.91 

1.91 

1925 

36,500 

1.82 

1.68 

59,500 

1.34 

1.23 

57,500 

1.56 

1.44 

1926 

31,065 

1.48 

1.45 

88,360 

1.37 

1.39 

81,760 

1.28 

1.25 

1927 

57,900 

1.70 

1.73 

58,695 

1.64 

1.67 

39,420 

1.50 

1.53 

Tragedy 

Burbank 

Total  or  average 

Actual 

Adjusted* 

Actual 

Adjusted* 

Actual 

Adjusted* 

Crates 

price 

price 

Crates 

price 

price 

Crates 

price 

price 

1917 

144,484 

$1.45 

$1.14 

28,497 

$1.46 

$1  15 

330,572 

$1.42 

$1.11 

1918 

50,865 

2.01 

1.51 

31,727 

1.82 

1.37 

185,206 

1.85 

1  39 

1919 

86,705 

1.90 

1.32 

37,055 

1.73 

1.20 

251,622 

1.86 

1.29 

1920 

60,030 

2.58 

1.58 

29,819 

2.25 

1.38 

178,811 

2  52 

1.54 

1921 

56,665 

1.92 

2.01 

35,795 

1.46 

1.53 

231,680 

1.74 

1.81 

1922 

74,055 

1.75 

1.67 

40,800 

1.15 

1.09 

290,545 

1.46 

1  38 

1923 

140,763 

1.32 

1.29 

67,024 

1.08 

1.06 

443,337 

1.32 

1.29 

1924 

55,030 

2.14 

2.14 

27,565 

1.82 

1.82 

201,125 

1  91 

1.91 

1925 

96,000 

1.69 

1.56 

37,500 

1.52 

1.40 

287,000 

1.59 

1.47 

1926 

128,020 

1.50 

1.47 

35,295 

1.34 

1.31 

364,500 

1.39 

1.36 

1927 

105,131 

1.79 

1.82 

43,568 

1.76 

1.79 

304,714 

1.70 

1.74 

*  The  adjusted  price  was  obtained  by  dividing  the  actual  price  of  each  year  by  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of 
Labor  Statistics  all-commodity  index  number  for  July  of  the  same  year  and  multiplying  the  quotient 
by  1.5.  This  brings  the  adjusted  price  approximately  in  terms  of  the  1927  price  level.  The  source  of  the 
index  number  used  is  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.    Index  numbers  of  farm  prices  (mimeo.)  pp.  60-63.  Jan.,  1928. 

Data  for  1917-1924  compiled  from  summaries  of  the  Stewart  Fruit  Co.  taken 
from  the  New  York  Daily  Fruit  Reporter,  current  issues;  for  1925-1927  from 
Hansen,  Carl  J.  Market  News  Service  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  and  California  Dept.  Agr. 
Mimeo.  reports  from  San  Francisco,  current  issues. 


The  trend  in  quantities  sold  at  New  York  is  upward  as  one  would 
expect  from  a  study  of  the  shipments  from  California  shown  in  table 
5.  The  trend  of  prices  seems  to  be  upward  during  this  period,  1917 
to  1927,  but  it  must  not  be  assumed  that  this  is  a  part  of  a  long 
upward  trend  which  is  likely  to  continue  for  some  time  in  the  future. 
Fragmentary  data  on  plum  prices  back  to  1913  indicate  fairly  high 
prices  at  that  time  followed  by  a  slump  which  reached  its  low  point 


BUL.  459]     ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   FRESH    PLUM    INDUSTRY 


25 


3>  M 

<  ?  a    a 

s 

Si 

K 

fit 


0  2^ 


ss   o 

15  5.  & 


1°    s 

*    s 

IP 
o 

*» 

8 

I 

:  ?2 
-  sr 

> 

^ 

1 

> 

1     5 

O            O 

■ 
o 

8 

M 
kl 

O 

o 

*M. 


* 

0           O 

s     l 

§    * 

8 

?  $ 

» 

a 

"    :?C      >§■ 

* 

■  f^K? 

OJi 

•""""\ 

3" 

\^ 

•«» 

erf* 

' 

H^^ 

„ --""«■** 

«-» 

^* 

a 

-<_ 

Kl 

N 

i 

>              !*              .-              r-              Nl 

K> 

Nfe       t 

3     8 

§    * 

! 

t           | 

1*5 

"l 


26  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

in  1917.  The  following  two  or  three  years  were  marked  by  a  recovery. 
Since  1920  and  1921  the  line  of  trend  seems  to  be  approximately  on 
a  level. 

Since  plums  make  up  but  a  small  proportion  of  the  fruit  available 
during  June,  July,  and  August  some  may  reason  that  even  a  large 
percentage  increase  in  the  supply  of  plums  will  have  little  effect  on 
their  price,  since  the  total  supply  of  fruit  will  be  affected  very  little 
thereby.  A  preliminary  study  of  past  experience,  however,  indicates 
that  plum  prices  are  affected  mainly  by  the  supply  of  plums  rather 
than  by  the  supply  of  all  other  fruits  available  at  that  time.  Although 
the  demand  for  plums  has  increased  to  some  extent,  as  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  the  price  trend  since  1920  has  not  fallen  appreciably 
with  the  increase  in  quantities  sold,  this  increase  in  demand  has 
developed  gradually.  How  long  it  will  continue  to  increase  cannot  be 
predicted  now.  It  does  not  seem  likely  that  the  demand  in  the  next 
three  years  will  increase  faster  than  the  bearing  acreage  in  California 
(see  p.  10),  hence  the  trend  in  prices  is  not  likely  to  be  upward. 

Net  Prices  to  Growers. — Tables  worked  out  by  Hansen  and  Holmes8 
show  approximately  the  cost  to  the  grower  of  shipping  his  plums  to 
New  York  and  selling  them.  The  charges  to  be  deducted  from  the 
New  York  price  per  crate  in  order  to  obtain  the  net  price  are  as 
follows : 

Crates,  packing,  and  loading $0.38 

Cartage:  ranch  to  station 03 

Freight  and  icing 55 

Sales  commission  (7  per  cent  on  $1.56) 11 

Total $1.07 

The  average  price  per  crate  at  New  York  from  1922  to  1927  for 
the  five  varieties  shown  in  table  13  was  $1.56.  Subtracting  $1.07 
leaves  a  net  price  of  $0.49  for  the  grower. 

s  Hansen,  C.  J.,  and  O.  W.  Holmes.  Marketing  California  plums  and  prunes 
season  1926.  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  and  California  Dept.  Agr.  Mimeo.  Report. 
p.  34. 


STATION   PUBLICATIONS  AVAILABLE   FOR  FREE   DISTRIBUTION 


No. 

253.  Irrigation  and  Soil  Conditions  in  the 
Sierra   Nevada   Foothills,    California. 

262.  Citrus   Diseases   of   Florida   and    Cuba 

Compared   Avith   those  of   California. 

263.  Size  Grades  for  Ripe  Olives. 

268.   Growing  and  Grafting  Olive  Seedlings. 

277.  Sudan  Grass. 

278.  Grain  Sorghums. 

279.  Irrigation   of   Rice  in   California. 
283.   The  Olive  Insects  of  California. 
304.   A   Study  of  the   Effects  of   Freezes   on 

Citrus  in  California. 

310.  Plum  Pollination. 

313.  Pruning  Young  Deciduous  Fruit 
Trees. 

324.  Storage  of  Perishable  Fruits  at  Freez- 
ing Temperatures. 

.'528.    Prune    Growing   in    California. 

331.   Phylloxera-resistant  Stocks. 

335.  Cocoanut  Meal  as  a  Feed  for  Dairy 
Cows  and   Other   Livestock. 

340.  Control  of  the  Pocket  Gopher  in 
California. 

343.  Cheese   Pests  and   Their  Control. 

344.  Cold    Storage   as   an    Aid   to   the    Mar- 

keting of  Plums,   a  Progress  Report. 

347.  The  Control  of  Red  Spiders  in  Decid- 

uous Orchards. 

348.  Pruning  Young  Olive  Trees. 

349.  A     Study    of     Sidedraft    and    Tractor 

Hitches. 

350.  Agriculture      in      Cut-Over      Redwood 

Lands. 

353.  Bovine    Infectious    Abortion,    and    As- 

sociated Diseases  of  Cattle  and  New- 
born Calves. 

354.  Results  of  Rice  Experiments  in   1922. 

357.  A    Self-Mixing    Dusting    Machine    for 

Applying  Dry  Insecticides  and  Fun- 
gicides. 

358.  Black    Measles,     Water    Berries,     and 

Related  Vine  Troubles. 

361.  Preliminary   Yield   Tables   for   Second- 

Growth   Redwood. 

362.  Dust  and   the   Tractor   Engine. 

363.  The   Pruning  of   Citrus  Trees  in   Cali- 

fornia. 

364.  Fungicidal    Dusts    for    the    Control    of 

Bunt. 
366.      Turkish     Tobacco     Culture,     Curing, 

and   Marketing. 
3  67.   Methods  of  Harvesting  and  Irrigation 

in  Relation  to  Moldy  Walnuts. 

368.  Bacterial      Decomposition      of      Olives 

During   Pickling. 

369.  Comparison     of     Woods     for     Butter 

Boxes. 

370.  Factors    Influencing    the    Development 

of  Internal  Browning  of  the  Yellow 
Newton   Apple. 

371.  The    Relative    Cost    of    Yarding    Small 

and   Large  Timber. 

373.  Pear   Pollination. 

374.  A    Survey    of    Orchard    Practices    in 

the  Citrus  Industry  of  Southern 
California. 

375.  Results   of    Rice   Experiments   at   Cor- 

tena,  1923,  and  Progress  in  Experi- 
ments in  Water  Grass  Control  at  the 
Biggs   Rice  Field   Station,    1922-23. 

377.  The  Cold  Storage  of  Pears. 

380.  Growth  of  Eucalyptus  in  California 
Plantations. 

382.  Pumping  for  Draininge  in  the  San 
Joaquin    Valley,    California. 

385.  Pollination  of  the  Sweet  Cherry. 

386.  Pruning      Bearing      Deciduous     Fruit 

Trees. 

387.  Fig    Smut. 

388.  The   Principles   and    Practice   of    Sun- 

Drying  Fruit. 


BULLETINS 
No. 


389. 
390. 

391. 

392. 
393. 
394. 


395. 

396. 

397. 

398. 
400. 
402. 
404. 
405. 
406. 
407. 


408. 
409. 


410. 


412. 


415. 
416. 


417. 
418. 


420. 


421. 
422. 


423. 
424. 


425. 
426. 


428. 


429. 
430. 
431. 

432. 

433. 


Cali- 
with 


Berseem  or  Egyptian  Clover. 

Harvesting  and  Packing  Grapes  in 
California. 

Machines  for  Coating  Seed  Wheat 
with    Copper   Carbonate   Dust. 

Fruit  Juice  Concentrates. 

Crop   Sequences  at  Davis. 

I.  Cereal  Hay  Production  in 
fornia.  II.  Feeding  Trials 
Cereal  Hays. 

Bark  Diseases  of  Citrus  Trees  in  Cali- 
fornia. 

The  Mat  Bean,  Phaseolus  Aconitifo- 
lius. 

Manufacture  of  Roquefort  Type  Cheese 
from  Goat's  Milk. 

Orchard    Heating  in   California. 

The  Utilization  of  Surplus  Plums. 

The  Codling  Moth  in  Walnuts. 

The  Dehydration  of  Prunes. 

Citrus   Culture   in    Central    California. 

Stationary  Spray  Plants  in  California. 

Yield,  Stand,  and  Volume  Tables  for 
White  Fir  in  the  California  Pine 
Region. 

Alternaria   Rot  of   Lemons. 

The  Digestibility  of  Certain  Fruit  By- 
products as  Determined  for  Rumi- 
nants. Part  I.  Dried  Orange  Pulp 
and  Raisin  Pulp. 

Factoi-s  Influencing  the  Quality  of 
Fresh  Asparagus  after  it  is  Har- 
vested. 

Paradichlorobenzene  as  a  Soil  Fumi- 
gant. 

A  Study  of  the  Relative  Value  of  Cer- 
tain Root  Crops  and  Salmon  Oil  as 
Sources    of   Vitamin    A   for    Poultry. 

Planting  and  Thinning  Distances  for 
Deciduous  Fruit  Trees. 

The  Tractor  on   California  Farms. 

Culture  of  the  Oriental  Persimmon  in 
California. 

Poultry  Feeding:  Principles  and  Prac- 
tice. 

A  Study  of  Various  Rations  for  Fin- 
ishing Range  Calves    as  Baby  Beeves. 

Economic  Aspects  of  the  Cantaloupe 
Industry. 

Rice  and  Rice  By-Produ*cts  as  Feeds 
for  Fattening  Swine. 

Beef   Cattle   Feeding  Trials,    1921-24. 

Cost  of  Producing  Almonds  in  Cali- 
fornia :  a  Progress  Report. 

Apricots  (Series  on  California  Crops 
and  Prices). 

The  Relation  of  Rate  of  Maturity  to 
Egg  Production. 

Apple  Growing   in   California. 

Apple  Pollination  Studies  in  Cali- 
fornia. 

The  Value  of  Orange  Pulp  for  Milk 
Production. 

The  Relation  of  Maturity  of 
fornia  Plums  to  Shipping 
Dessert  Quality. 

Economic  Status  of  the  Grape  Industry. 

Range  Grasses  of  California. 

Raisin  By-Products  and  Bean  Screen- 
ings as  Feeds  for  Fattening  Lambs. 

Some  Economic  Problems  Involved  in 
the  Pooling  of  Fruit. 

Power  Requirements  of  Electrically 
Driven    Manufacturing    Equipment. 

Investigations  on  the  Use  of  Fruits  in 
Ice  Cream  and  Ices. 

The  Problem  of  Securing  Closer 
Relationship  Between  Agricultural 
Development  and  Irrigation  Con- 
struction. 


Cali- 
and 


bulletins- 


no. 

436 


I.  The  Kadota  Fig.  II.  Kadota  Fig 
Products. 

43  7.  Economic  Aspects  of  the  Dairy  In- 
dustry. 

438  Grafting  Affinities  with  Special  Refer- 
ence to  Plums. 

439.  The  Digestibility  of  Certain  Fruit  By- 

products as  Determined  for  Rumi- 
nants. Part  II.  Dried  Pineapple 
Pulp,  Dried  Lemon  Pulp,  and  Dried 
Olive  Pulp. 

440.  The    Feeding    Value    of    Raisins    and 

Dairy  By-Products  for  Growing  and 
Fattening  Swine. 

441.  The  Electric  Brooder. 

442.  Laboratory  Tests  of  Orchard  Heaters. 

443.  Standardization    and    Improvement    of 

California   Butter. 

444.  Series  on  California  Crops  and  Prices: 

Beans. 


(Continued) 
No. 

445.  Economic    Aspects    of    the    Apple    In- 

dustry. 

446.  The  Asparagus  Industry  in  California. 

447.  The  Method  of  Determining  the  Clean 

Weights    of    Individual    Fleeces    of 
Wool. 

448.  Farmers'      Purchase     Agreement     for 

Deep   Well   Pumps. 

449.  Economic   Aspects  of  the  Watermelon 

Industry. 

450.  Irrigation    Investigations    with    Field 

Crops  at  Davis,   and  at  Delhi,   Cali- 
fornia. 

451.  Studies    Preliminary   to   the    Establish- 

ment of  a  Series  of  Fertilizer  Trials 
in  a  Bearing  Citrus  Grove. 

452.  Economic    Aspects    of    the    Pear    In- 

dustry. 


No. 

87. 

117. 

127. 
129. 
136. 

144. 

157. 
164. 
166. 
178. 
202. 

203. 
209. 
212. 
215. 
230. 

231. 
232. 

234. 

238. 
239. 

240. 

241. 

243. 

244. 
245. 
248. 

249. 
250. 

252, 
253. 
255. 

257. 

258 
259 
261 


CIRCULARS 
No. 
265. 
266. 


Alfalfa. 

The    selection    and    Cost    of    a    Small 

Pumping  Plant. 
House  Fumigation.  267. 

The  control  of  Citrus  Insects. 
Melilotus    Indica    as    a    Green-Manure  269. 

Crop  for  California.  270. 

Oidium    or    Powdery    Mildew    of    the  273. 

Vine.  276. 

Control  of  Pear   Scab.  277. 

Small   Fruit   Culture   in    California. 
The  County  Farm  Bureau.  278. 

The  Packing  of  Apples  in  California. 
County    Organization    for    Rural    Fire  279. 

Control. 
Peat   as   a  Manure   Substitute.  281. 

The  Function  of  the  Farm  Bureau. 
Salvaging   Rain-Damaged  Prunes. 
Feeding  Dairy  Cows  in   California.  282. 

Testing  Milk,    Cream,    and   Skim  Milk 

for  Butterfat.  284. 

The  Home  Vineyard.  286. 

Harvesting    and    Handling    California  287. 

Cherries   for   Eastern    Shipment.  288. 

Winter     Injury     to     Young     Walnut  289. 

Trees  During  1921-1922.  290. 

The   Apricot  in   California.  292. 

Harvesting     and     Handling     Apricots  293. 

and  Plums  for  Eastern  Shipment.  294, 

Harvesting    and    Handling    California  296. 

Pears  for  Eastern  Shipment. 
Harvesting    and    Handling    California  298. 

Peaches  for  Eastern  Shipment. 
Marmalade     Juice     and     Jelly     Juice  300. 

from   Citrus  Fruits.  301. 

Central  Wire  Bracing  for  Fruit  Trees.  302. 

Vine  Pruning  Systems.  304. 

Some  Common   Errors  in  Vine  Prun-  305. 

ing  and  Their  Remedies.  307. 

Replacing  Missing  Vines.  308. 

Measurement   of   Irrigation   Water   on  309. 

the  Farm.  310. 

Support  for   Vines. 

Vineyard  Plans.  311, 

Leguminous    Plants    as    Organic    Fer-  312. 

tilizers  in   California   Agriculture. 
The  Small-Seeded  Horse  Bean    (Vicia 

faba  var.   minor). 
Thinning   Deciduous  Fruits. 
Pear  By-Products. 
Sewing  Grain  Sacks. 

The  publications  listed  above  may  be  had  by  addressing 

College  of  Agriculture, 

University  of  California, 

Berkeley,  California. 

12m-10,'28 


Plant   Disease  and   Pest  Control. 

Analyzing  the  Citrus  Orchard  by 
Means  of  Simple  Tree  Records. 

The  Tendency  of  Tractors  to  Rise  in 
Front;  Causes  and  Remedies. 

An   Orchard   Brush  Burner. 

A  Farm  Septic  Tank. 

Saving  the   Gophered  Citrus  Tree. 

Home   Canning. 

Head,  Cane  and  Cordon  Pruning  of 
Vines. 

Olive  Pickling  in  Mediterranean 
Countries. 

The  Preparation  and  Refining  of 
Olive  Oil  in  Southern  Europe. 

The  Results  of  a  Survey  to  Deter- 
mine the  Cost  of  Producing  Beef  in 
California. 

Prevention  of  Insect  Attack  on  Stored 
Grain. 

The  Almond  in   California. 

Milk  Houses  for  California  Dairies. 

Potato   Production  in   California. 

Phylloxera  Resistant  Vineyards. 

Oak  Fungus  in   Orchard  Trees. 

The  Tangier  Pea. 

Alkali   Soils. 

The    Basis   of    Grape    Standardization. 

Propagation   of   Deciduous  Fruits. 

Control  of  the  California  Ground 
Squirrel. 

Possibilities  and  Limitations  of  Coop- 
erative Marketing. 

Coccidiosis  of  Chickens. 

Buckeye  Poisoning  of  the  Honey  Bee. 

The   Sugar  Beet  in  California. 

Drainage  on  the  Farm. 

Liming  the   Soil. 

American  Foulbrood   and  Its  Control. 

Cantaloupe    Production    in   California. 

Fruit  Tree  and   Orchard  Judging. 

The  Operation  of  the  Bacteriological 
Laboratory  for  Dairy  Plants. 

The  Improvement  of   Quality  in  Figs. 

Principles  Governing  the  Choice,  Op- 
eration and  Care  of  Small  Irrigation 
Pumping   Plants. 


